SAP MCP Server

Record Audit Entry

sap_audit_record

Free local tool. Records a manual audit entry in the tool call history. Use this to log custom events (e.g. manual interventions, external transactions, policy decisions). No x402 charge.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: free; call directly without x402. Routing: free hosted call; call directly and keep it small/exact when possible. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input`	No	JSON details.
`output`	No	JSON result.
`outcome`	Yes	Outcome.
`toolName`	Yes	Label for the audit entry.
`txSignature`	No	Transaction signature if applicable.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	MCP content blocks returned to the caller.
`isError`	No	True when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting the tool is free, free from x402 restrictions, and includes signer boundary guidance. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with recording. No contradictions, but more detail on side effects (e.g., persistence) could improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second paragraph contains repetitive boilerplate ('Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow') but still concise overall. Every sentence adds relevant information, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers purpose, usage examples, pricing, and routing. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It is adequate, though it could mention the required fields (toolName, outcome) explicitly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is sufficient. No additional semantic guidance is given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Records a manual audit entry in the tool call history.' It provides specific examples like 'manual interventions, external transactions, policy decisions,' and the name and title align. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_audit_query and sap_audit_stats by focusing on recording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool ('Use this to log custom events') and mentions it is free, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to other audit tools. However, the context of recording vs querying is implied, and the 'No x402 charge' note guides cost-effective usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SAP MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by protocol prefix (e.g., adrena_, jupiter_, sap_) which helps distinguish domains. Within each protocol, tool names clearly indicate actions (e.g., openPosition, getQuote). However, with 360 tools, some cross-protocol overlaps (e.g., multiple swap tools) and many similar fetch tools in the sap_* family require careful reading of descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Each protocol group follows a consistent naming convention (e.g., snake_case for adrena_, camelCase for 3land, sap_ prefix for SAP SDK tools). The mix of conventions across protocols is acceptable, though a uniform style would improve predictability. Minor inconsistency: hyphenated names like metaplex-nft_ vs underscores.

Tool Count2/5

360 tools is far too many for a well-scoped MCP server. This aggregates dozens of protocols and SAP-specific features, making navigation difficult. The server would benefit from being split into focused micro-servers (e.g., SAP identity, Jupiter DEX, NFT tools). The current count overwhelms the coherence of the set.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast range of Solana ecosystem activities: token operations, swaps, staking, NFT management, bridging, oracle data, identity registration, chat, escrow, subscriptions, and premium streaming. Major lifecycle operations are present, though some niche subdomains may have missing functions (e.g., detailed governance or lending management). Overall, it's comprehensive for the intended scope.

Record Audit Entry

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources